Grayscale Research Chief Says Crypto Can Keep Advancing Even Without
The cryptocurrency industry could continue moving forward even if Congress fails to pass the CLARITY Act in 2026, according to Grayscale Research head Zach Pandl, who argues that regulatory progress does not depend entirely on a single piece of legislation.
Pandl's assessment comes as the U.S. Senate faces growing uncertainty over the timing of the digital asset market structure bill. The legislation, widely viewed as one of the industry's most important regulatory priorities, has encountered political disagreements that have made its path toward final passage increasingly complicated.
The Senate recently delayed further action on the bill until after its August recess, raising concerns that lawmakers may struggle to complete the legislation before the end of the year. The bill would establish a more comprehensive framework for determining which digital assets fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission and which belong under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
But Pandl believes the cryptocurrency industry has already developed far beyond the point where its future depends entirely on congressional legislation.
His argument is that progress can continue through a combination of regulatory rulemaking, institutional custody, banking access, exchange-traded products and clearer policies surrounding activities such as staking.
The Coin Bureau account on X also highlighted the view, bringing renewed attention to the possibility that crypto markets could continue expanding even if the CLARITY Act does not become law this year.
The distinction is important for investors. Passage of the legislation could accelerate institutional adoption and reduce regulatory uncertainty, but failure to pass it would not necessarily bring the industry's development to a halt.
Instead, the market could enter a period in which regulators, financial institutions and digital asset companies continue building around the existing framework while waiting for Congress to establish a broader statutory structure.
CLARITY Act Faces a More Difficult Path in Washington
The CLARITY Act has become a central part of the U.S. cryptocurrency industry's push for regulatory certainty.
The legislation seeks to establish clearer boundaries between securities and commodities and to define which federal regulators should oversee different parts of the digital asset market.
That distinction has been one of the industry's biggest unresolved issues.
For years, cryptocurrency companies have argued that uncertainty over whether a particular token or activity falls under securities law has made it difficult to build businesses in the United States.
The CLARITY Act is designed to address that uncertainty by creating a more defined market structure.
The bill has already advanced through the Senate Banking Committee, where it received bipartisan support. However, passing a bill through the full Senate requires overcoming additional political and procedural obstacles.
The latest developments have made the timeline more uncertain.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed a motion to set up a procedural vote after the August recess, suggesting that Republican leaders still intend to advance the legislation. However, lawmakers remain divided over several provisions, and the bill needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
That leaves the legislation facing a narrow window for passage before the 2026 legislative calendar becomes increasingly crowded.
For the crypto industry, the uncertainty has raised a broader question: What happens if CLARITY does not become law this year?
Pandl's answer is that the industry can continue developing.
Crypto Has Already Operated Without Comprehensive Market Structure Law
One of the central arguments behind Pandl's assessment is historical.
The cryptocurrency industry has operated for years without a comprehensive federal market structure law in the United States.
Bitcoin existed for more than a decade before the current push for congressional crypto legislation became a central political issue.
During that period, the industry developed exchanges, custody providers, decentralized finance applications, stablecoins, blockchain infrastructure and institutional investment products.
The absence of a comprehensive market structure framework created substantial uncertainty, but it did not prevent the technology from expanding.
Pandl's argument is not that regulatory clarity is unnecessary.
Instead, the point is that regulatory clarity can emerge through multiple channels.
Congress can pass legislation, but regulators can also issue interpretations, guidance and rules that provide greater certainty to market participants.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has already taken several steps in that direction during 2026.
SEC Has Already Begun Defining the Crypto Regulatory Perimeter
The SEC issued a major interpretation in March 2026 addressing how federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions.
The agency said the interpretation was intended to provide greater clarity around the treatment of digital assets and to clarify the relationship between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The SEC's interpretation established categories including digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins and digital securities.
It also addressed questions surrounding airdrops, protocol mining, staking and wrapped crypto assets.
That development is important because it demonstrates how much regulatory progress can occur without Congress passing a comprehensive market structure statute.
The agency has also continued examining how existing rules can be adapted to the cryptocurrency industry.
For investors and companies, every additional clarification can reduce uncertainty around how a particular product or activity should be structured.
This does not replace legislation.
A congressional law can provide a more durable and comprehensive framework than individual regulatory interpretations.
But it means the industry does not necessarily have to remain frozen while lawmakers negotiate.
Institutional Custody Could Continue Expanding
Another area that could support crypto's development without the CLARITY Act is institutional custody.
Large investors generally require regulated and secure infrastructure before allocating significant amounts of capital to digital assets.
Pension funds, asset managers, family offices and other institutional investors need to know how their assets will be held, protected, valued and accounted for.
Custody is therefore one of the most important building blocks of institutional crypto adoption.
The SEC has been considering changes to custody regulations that could affect how investment advisers and funds handle crypto assets. A current SEC regulatory agenda includes potential amendments to custody rules under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act, including provisions addressing crypto assets.
That process could eventually create additional clarity for institutions.
The development of regulated custodial infrastructure also makes it easier for traditional financial companies to enter the digital asset market.
Banks, asset managers and brokerage firms do not necessarily need to build their own blockchain infrastructure from scratch.
Instead, they can work with specialized custody providers and regulated financial intermediaries.
That creates a pathway for institutional adoption even if broader congressional legislation takes longer.
Banking Access Could Become Another Catalyst
Banking access is another critical component of the crypto industry's future.
Digital asset companies require relationships with banks for payments, settlement, cash management and other financial services.
Historically, access to traditional banking infrastructure has been inconsistent for cryptocurrency businesses.
Greater regulatory clarity could encourage more banks to serve digital asset companies, but the industry may also make progress through existing rules and regulatory guidance.
The more clearly regulators define acceptable crypto-related activities, the easier it becomes for banks to assess the risks associated with serving those businesses.
That could eventually encourage more financial institutions to participate.
The significance extends beyond cryptocurrency exchanges.
Stablecoin issuers, tokenization platforms, custody providers, payment companies and blockchain infrastructure businesses all need access to traditional financial services.
If banking relationships become easier to establish, the broader digital asset economy could expand even without the immediate passage of CLARITY.
Staking Policy Could Open Another Door
Staking is another area where regulatory policy could have a major impact.
Proof-of-stake networks rely on participants locking or committing crypto assets to help secure a blockchain and validate transactions.
In return, participants can receive rewards.
For years, the regulatory status of staking has been a subject of debate in the United States.
Clearer rules could make it easier for exchanges, custodians, asset managers and other financial institutions to offer staking-related services.
The SEC's March 2026 interpretation specifically addressed protocol staking as part of its effort to clarify how federal securities laws apply to crypto assets and related activities.
That could be particularly important for institutional investors.
If financial institutions can confidently determine when staking activities fall outside securities regulation, they may be more willing to incorporate staking into investment products and custody arrangements.
The effect could extend beyond individual cryptocurrencies.
Staking has become an important component of the economic model for several major blockchain networks, making the regulatory treatment of staking relevant to the broader digital asset market.
 |
| Source: Xpost |
Tokenization Could Continue Regardless of CLARITY
Tokenization is another area that could continue developing without a final market structure law.
Financial institutions are increasingly exploring blockchain technology to represent traditional assets digitally.
Stocks, bonds, funds and other financial instruments can potentially be represented using blockchain-based systems.
The appeal is partly based on the possibility of faster settlement, greater automation and improved transparency.
The growth of tokenization is already occurring through financial institutions and technology companies.
Pandl has previously described regulatory clarity as part of a much larger trend involving stablecoins, tokenized assets and decentralized finance.
That suggests the tokenization movement should not be viewed as dependent on one U.S. legislative proposal.
A successful CLARITY Act could accelerate the process by creating clearer legal boundaries.
But companies can continue developing infrastructure, testing use cases and building institutional products under existing regulations.
The SEC's recent interpretation could also provide additional guidance for companies working with digital assets and tokenized financial products.
The Risk of Falling Behind Other Jurisdictions Remains
Pandl's argument that crypto can continue advancing without CLARITY does not mean the absence of legislation would be harmless.
There is a significant risk that prolonged uncertainty could encourage some companies and developers to move activity outside the United States.
Digital assets are global by nature.
A blockchain developer can establish operations in another jurisdiction. A financial company can launch products in markets with clearer regulations. Investors can gain exposure through international platforms.
That creates competition between jurisdictions.
If the United States takes too long to establish a comprehensive framework, other financial centers could gain an advantage in areas such as tokenization, stablecoins and digital asset trading.
This concern has been raised by industry participants and analysts.
The Senate Banking Committee itself has described the CLARITY Act as an effort to establish clear and enforceable rules while keeping investment and innovation in the United States.
So while crypto may continue growing without CLARITY, the pace and location of that growth could be affected.
What CLARITY Could Still Change
The argument that crypto can survive without CLARITY should not be confused with the idea that the legislation is irrelevant.
A comprehensive federal law could provide something that individual regulatory actions cannot easily deliver: long-term statutory certainty.
Legislation could establish clear jurisdictional boundaries between federal regulators and create a more consistent framework for exchanges, issuers, custodians and other market participants.
That could encourage institutions that remain hesitant to enter the market.
For large financial institutions, regulatory certainty can be just as important as market opportunity.
Companies may be willing to tolerate some uncertainty during an early development phase, but large-scale institutional capital generally requires predictable rules.
The CLARITY Act could therefore serve as an accelerator.
Its failure would be a setback, but not necessarily a roadblock.
That distinction appears to be at the heart of Pandl's argument.
Crypto's Next Phase May Depend on More Than Congress
The debate over CLARITY ultimately reflects a broader change in the cryptocurrency industry.
Crypto is no longer a small technology experiment operating outside the traditional financial system.
It has become connected to exchanges, banks, asset managers, payment companies, custodians and public markets.
As that integration continues, regulation will increasingly develop through several channels at once.
Congress can establish laws.
Regulators can interpret existing laws.
Financial institutions can develop compliant infrastructure.
Companies can create products within existing regulatory boundaries.
Investors can increasingly access digital assets through regulated financial products.
Together, these developments can move the industry forward even when legislation becomes politically difficult.
Coin Bureau Highlights the Broader Regulatory Debate
The Coin Bureau account on X has also drawn attention to the argument that the crypto industry can continue advancing even if CLARITY fails to become law in 2026.
The commentary reflects a debate that has become increasingly important as the Senate works through the remaining obstacles to the legislation.
The central issue is not whether regulatory clarity matters.
It does.
The question is whether the lack of one comprehensive law would be enough to stop the broader institutional and technological trends already underway.
Current developments suggest that it would not.
The SEC has already issued significant guidance on crypto assets and staking. Institutional custody infrastructure continues to develop. Financial companies are exploring tokenization and stablecoins. And lawmakers remain engaged in the process of creating a broader statutory framework.
What Investors Should Watch Next
The next several months could be important for the U.S. cryptocurrency industry.
Investors will be watching whether the Senate can revive the CLARITY Act after its August recess and whether lawmakers can resolve the political disagreements that have delayed the bill.
At the same time, regulatory developments outside Congress could prove just as important.
Further SEC guidance, custody rulemaking, banking policies and decisions involving staking could gradually reshape the market.
Institutional adoption will also remain a critical indicator.
If major asset managers, banks and financial companies continue expanding their involvement in digital assets despite legislative uncertainty, it would strengthen the argument that the industry's momentum is broader than any single bill.
If institutions begin delaying investments because of uncertainty, however, pressure on lawmakers to act could increase.
The Bottom Line
The CLARITY Act remains one of the most important pieces of proposed cryptocurrency legislation in the United States, but its potential failure in 2026 would not necessarily stop the digital asset industry from advancing.
Zach Pandl's view is that crypto has multiple pathways toward greater regulatory clarity.
SEC rulemaking and interpretations can address some uncertainties. Institutional custody can provide the infrastructure needed by large investors. Greater banking access can connect crypto businesses with traditional finance. Clearer staking policies can expand the range of services available to digital asset users.
Meanwhile, tokenization and stablecoin adoption can continue developing as financial institutions explore blockchain-based infrastructure.
The CLARITY Act could accelerate these trends by providing a comprehensive statutory framework.
But the industry's development is already being shaped by regulators, banks, asset managers and technology companies.
That means the future of crypto in the United States may not depend on a single vote in Congress.
As Pandl's assessment suggests, the industry can continue moving forward even without CLARITY.
The bigger question is whether it will move forward faster in the United States or whether prolonged legislative uncertainty will encourage more of the industry's capital, developers and financial activity to look elsewhere.
hoka.news – Not Just Crypto News. It’s Crypto Culture.
Writer @Victoria
Victoria Hale is a writer focused on blockchain and digital technology. She is known for her ability to simplify complex technological developments into content that is clear, easy to understand, and engaging to read.
Through her writing, Victoria covers the latest trends, innovations, and developments in the digital ecosystem, as well as their impact on the future of finance and technology. She also explores how new technologies are changing the way people interact in the digital world.
Her writing style is simple, informative, and focused on providing readers with a clear understanding of the rapidly evolving world of technology.
Check out other news and articles on Google News
Disclaimer:
The articles on HOKA.NEWS are here to keep you updated on the latest buzz in crypto, tech, and beyond—but they’re not financial advice. We’re sharing info, trends, and insights, not telling you to buy, sell, or invest. Always do your own homework before making any money moves.
HOKA.NEWS isn’t responsible for any losses, gains, or chaos that might happen if you act on what you read here. Investment decisions should come from your own research—and, ideally, guidance from a qualified financial advisor. Remember: crypto and tech move fast, info changes in a blink, and while we aim for accuracy, we can’t promise it’s 100% complete or up-to-date.